Could, should, might, don’t - A taxonomy of futurists.
Over the last twenty years I’ve met a great number of futurists, futures designers, writers, strategists, foresight practitioners and more. They’re all wonderfully different but there are thematic traits in the ways they see the world and the ways they approach their work. Recently I’ve been trying to understand the relative merits of each and in so doing the following four characters have emerged. As with anything, there’s an argument for and against each approach (and my characterizations are simplistic and open for debate), but my hunch is that a well-rounded body of futures work would embrace elements of each, and a well-rounded futurist would understand how to use each of these mindsets in a balanced way.
The Could Futurist
Theirs is the realm of dreams and wishful thinking.
They harbor fantasies about how the world could be.
They enjoy the work of Syd Mead, concept cars, CES visions.
They propose alternative worlds, conceptual systems, future societies.
They devour science fiction.
They focus on the creation of mission and message and story.
They are hopeful, wide eyed, excitable.
They are unbounded by timelines, and think at generational scales.
They are frustrated by pragmatism.
They are solutionists, utopianists, their glass is half full.
They are comfortable blurring the lines between fact and fiction.
They self-identify as visionaries, they write manifestos.
The Should Futurist
Theirs is the realm of decisions and recommendations.
They talk of strategy and scenario, of planning and foresight.
They are confident consultants, boardroom preachers, C-suite whisperers.
Their work presents itself as the summation of all things considered.
They have an air of certainty, of definitive assuredness.
They are structured, logical and action oriented.
They speak in data, charts and diagrams.
They gorge on statistics, analysis and trends.
They trust the dotted line of prediction.
They are empirical, pragmatic, decisive.
The Might Futurist
Theirs is the realm of balanced discussion
They are agnostic, analytic, thoughtful.
They introduces orthogonal ideas, they think broadly.
They spend time embracing and understanding the field.
They relish in discovering overlooked but important details.
They look beyond the subject at hand
They talk of externalities and dependencies.
They’re comfortable holding lots of things in tension with each other.
They embrace uncertainty, discuss plurality, constantly reassess.
They embrace opinion, enjoy debate.
They are indecisive, uncertain, circumspect.
The Don’t Futurist
Theirs is the realm of the uncomfortable perspective.
They strive to reveal the overlooked.
They discuss implications and effects, pitfalls and perils.
They’re drawn to dystopian tales, negative consequences, potential collapses.
They‘re weary of promises and assurances.
They are mission driven and campaign minded.
They have done the reading and are excitedly informed.
They view the world as infinitely faceted and complex.
They hold global perspectives, and inclusive mindsets
They are willfully contrarian, occasionally polemical, endlessly dubious.
– There’s probably a 2x2 matrix to be drawn here, but I either can’t figure it out or am concerned that in creating a 2x2 matrix I might inadvertently simplify what is in reality a complex set of nuanced relationships –